As I understand it, most of the ad slots were sold at a yearly sales event. This time most advertisers were cautious because the company couldn't respond to questions of how Elon Musk's takeover would affect the company (and specifically the type of content alongside which the ads would appear) as this was happening before he took over but after the sale was practically a done deal. This left them with only a fraction of the ad slots "pre-sold" compared to a normal year.
Additionally it seems a lot of advertisers have cautioned their ad departments to halt spending on Twitter ads for now because they're still unclear about wtf Elon Musk is up to (not to mention the mass impersonation fiasco that allegedly resulted in share prices of several companies being affected negatively).
It's not just sales people, Twitter seems to have gotten rid of most of its external communications people to the point where journalists can't even find anyone to ask for statements other than Elon Musk himself (which may be intentional given that he likes to present himself as the face of his companies).
But if Twitter's ad sales really did rely so much on these sales events, I'd wager that the sales people largely existed to communicate directly with long-standing big-spend advertising partners. It's hard to overstate how much these types of deals hinge on "social glue" rather than cold hard numbers (which can be interpreted/reframed to be interpreted however you want as long as both sides are happy).
Well it's all rumors, but if the news was good then Elon would be trumpeting it from the hilltops since his brand and the company's depends on the perception of his business acumen. He's certainly trying to do that[1] whereas the response has been lukewarm. Meanwhile, his people with direct relations to the major ad buyers are getting fired[2], and the handling of the relationships with industry groups seems poor[3].
The issue is Twitter under it's current debt burden can't afford to lose any of its advertisers. It needed to find a $1 billion of savings somewhere to keep the deal viable, and not lose any advertising revenue. Due to the acquisition that's off the board entirely due to tanking their guaranteed revenue[4] to the tune of $600-900 million, and since then Musk has done almost everything possible to drive away ongoing spend. So at this point, Twitter is in the hole to at least $600 million of revenue, bringing their minimum current loss for this year up to ~$1.5 billion. If you needed to explain one thing, it's that the massive quick firings were a desperate move to not lose money on that, but it's a false economy and Elon's being ruining any gains by continuing to make moves which seem like they're hemorrhaging even more ad-dollars.
Additionally it seems a lot of advertisers have cautioned their ad departments to halt spending on Twitter ads for now because they're still unclear about wtf Elon Musk is up to (not to mention the mass impersonation fiasco that allegedly resulted in share prices of several companies being affected negatively).
It's not just sales people, Twitter seems to have gotten rid of most of its external communications people to the point where journalists can't even find anyone to ask for statements other than Elon Musk himself (which may be intentional given that he likes to present himself as the face of his companies).
But if Twitter's ad sales really did rely so much on these sales events, I'd wager that the sales people largely existed to communicate directly with long-standing big-spend advertising partners. It's hard to overstate how much these types of deals hinge on "social glue" rather than cold hard numbers (which can be interpreted/reframed to be interpreted however you want as long as both sides are happy).